What is the moral difference between refusing to perform at apresidential inauguration because you have a moral opposition to theincoming president, and refusing to bake a wedding cake for a same sexcouple because you have a moral opposition to same sex marriage?

Lots. Performing at an inauguration is not part of being a businessopen to the public. It's a dedicated, one-off service not available tothe public.

What is the moral difference between refusing to perform at apresidential inauguration because you have a moral opposition to theincoming president, and refusing to bake a wedding cake for a same sexcouple because you have a moral opposition to same sex marriage?

Hm.US law. Morals don't apply to the law. Never have, never will.

That's wrong, of course. Laws reflect accepted notions of morality.That's why they become laws: people feel what they prescribe is morallyright.

What is the moral difference between refusing to perform at apresidential inauguration because you have a moral opposition to theincoming president, and refusing to bake a wedding cake for a same sexcouple because you have a moral opposition to same sex marriage?

Hm.

That's wrong, of course. Laws reflect accepted notions of morality.That's why they become laws: people feel what they prescribe is morallyright.<chuckle>You're stupid, little HIV+ "kiddo" - stupid, and an easy victim.

What is the moral difference between refusing to perform at apresidential inauguration because you have a moral opposition to theincoming president, and refusing to bake a wedding cake for a same sexcouple because you have a moral opposition to same sex marriage?

Hm.

That's wrong, of course. Laws reflect accepted notions of morality.That's why they become laws: people feel what they prescribe is morallyright.<chuckle>You're stupid, little HIV+ "kiddo" - stupid, and an easy victim.

What is the moral difference between refusing to perform at apresidential inauguration because you have a moral opposition totheincoming president, and refusing to bake a wedding cake for a samesexcouple because you have a moral opposition to same sex marriage?

In addition to what Rudy said (the former is not a business open tothepublic), the former is based on what the person believes, thelatter isbased on who they are.

You have covered the legal issue, I asked about the moral context.From where I sit, if it is immoral for a Christian cake artist torefuseto design and produce a wedding cake for a same sex wedding, it isimmoral for an entertainer to refuse to perform for a politicianbecausehe does not like that person's politics.

The difference I presented above is a moral difference. It is fardifferent to refuse service because of who someone is (immutabletrait)than for what they believe (mutable).

You didn't show that that's a moral difference. In fact, it isn't.Of course, in a truly moral and just society, you would be free torefuse service for whatever reason you wished, or for no reason at allapart from mere caprice. Anti-discrimination laws violate*fundamental*human rights: the rights of freedom of association and freedom ofcontract. Even worse is the fiction of neutrality or impartiality. Itis not in doubt that a white claiming to be the victim of racialdiscrimination at the hands of a black owned business would not get thetime of day from a federal civil rights office. Even beyond theviolation of fundamental human rights that anti-discrimination lawsimpose, there is the even uglier dimension of unequal enforcement ofthelaw based on - indeed! - racial discrimination.

On this we agree.

That's fine, but we don't agree on what is fundamentally objectionableabout anti-discrimination laws. You think what's wrong with them isthat they violate people's "free exercise" rights, but that's purely a*political* right that is not in any way based on fundamental humanrights. I maintain that anti-discrimination laws violate *fundamental*human rights, but you scoff at those and focus your ignorant attentionon a purely political right. The simple fact is, your political rightto "free exercise" is not based in any way on fundamental human rights.Fundamental human rights have no connection to religion in any way.Your ignorant view of the burden of anti-discrimination laws is that ifa person *doesn't* have a religious objection to obeying the laws, thenhe has no recourse. Your position is that if a person has a religiousobjection to following the law, then he should be granted an exemptionto the law; but if his objection isn't based in religious belief, thenhe's fucked and has to obey the law. That is intolerable. It isfundamentally wrong. Your religious beliefs *OUGHT* to have noconsideration under the law. Legally, beliefs are bullshit and deserveno protection whatever. Only *rights* deserve protection.

Exactly what is the source of these rights?

You can think of the source as whatever you wish. Thomas Jefferson saidit was our "Creator" who endowed us with them. Being a rational personwith the capacity for critical thinking, I don't believe insuperstitious nonsense like that. However, I do believe we are endowedwith those rights at birth, the same as Jefferson believed. Now, beingendowed with them doesn't mean every person lives in a society and undera regime in which the rights are respected. When we look at a societylike North Korea or south Sudan, however, we don't shrug and say, "well,those people just don't have fundamental human rights." No, what we sayis that their rights are being *violated* by their regimes.

My own thought on the actual origin of rights is that are an artifact ofhuman thought, which is, of course, a product of evolution, as is thehuman tendency to live in cooperative societies. Human intelligenceendows the vast majority of persons with the innate sense of beingautonomous individual moral entities, that is, moral actors, and we seethat, individually and collectively, our interests are best served insocieties that acknowledge and respect that autonomy. Thatacknowledgement and respect are the basic elements of the rightsthemselves. *I* have fundamental human rights even though I know yoursilly infantile nonsense about a "creator" is wrong, so my rights arenot based in any "free exercise" of religion.

What is the moral difference between refusing to perform at apresidential inauguration because you have a moral opposition tothe incoming president, and refusing to bake a wedding cake fora same sex couple because you have a moral opposition to samesex marriage?

In addition to what Rudy said (the former is not a business opento the public), the former is based on what the person believes,the latter is based on who they are.

You have covered the legal issue, I asked about the moral context.From where I sit, if it is immoral for a Christian cake artist torefuse to design and produce a wedding cake for a same sexwedding, it is immoral for an entertainer to refuse to perform fora politician because he does not like that person's politics.

The difference I presented above is a moral difference. It is fardifferent to refuse service because of who someone is (immutabletrait)than for what they believe (mutable).

You didn't show that that's a moral difference. In fact, it isn't.Of course, in a truly moral and just society, you would be free torefuse service for whatever reason you wished, or for no reason atall apart from mere caprice. Anti-discrimination laws violate*fundamental*human rights: the rights of freedom of association and freedom ofcontract. Even worse is the fiction of neutrality or impartiality.It is not in doubt that a white claiming to be the victim of racialdiscrimination at the hands of a black owned business would not getthe time of day from a federal civil rights office. Even beyond theviolation of fundamental human rights that anti-discrimination lawsimpose, there is the even uglier dimension of unequal enforcement ofthe law based on - indeed! - racial discrimination.

On this we agree.

That's fine, but we don't agree on what is fundamentally objectionableabout anti-discrimination laws. You think what's wrong with them isthat they violate people's "free exercise" rights, but that's purely a*political* right that is not in any way based on fundamental humanrights. I maintain that anti-discrimination laws violate*fundamental*human rights, but you scoff at those and focus your ignorant attentionon a purely political right. The simple fact is, your political rightto "free exercise" is not based in any way on fundamental human rights.Fundamental human rights have no connection to religion in any way.Your ignorant view of the burden of anti-discrimination laws is thatif a person *doesn't* have a religious objection to obeying the laws,then he has no recourse. Your position is that if a person has areligious objection to following the law, then he should be granted anexemption to the law; but if his objection isn't based in religiousbelief, then he's fucked and has to obey the law. That isintolerable. It is fundamentally wrong. Your religious beliefs*OUGHT* to have no consideration under the law. Legally, beliefs arebullshit and deserve no protection whatever. Only *rights* deserveprotection.

Exactly what is the source of these rights?

You can think of the source as whatever you wish. Thomas Jefferson saidit was our "Creator" who endowed us with them. Being a rational personwith the capacity for critical thinking, I don't believe insuperstitious nonsense like that. However, I do believe we are endowedwith those rights at birth, the same as Jefferson believed. Now, beingendowed with them doesn't mean every person lives in a society and undera regime in which the rights are respected. When we look at a societylike North Korea or south Sudan, however, we don't shrug and say, "well,those people just don't have fundamental human rights." No, what we sayis that their rights are being *violated* by their regimes.My own thought on the actual origin of rights is that are an artifact ofhuman thought, which is, of course, a product of evolution, as is thehuman tendency to live in cooperative societies. Human intelligenceendows the vast majority of persons with the innate sense of beingautonomous individual moral entities, that is, moral actors, and we seethat, individually and collectively, our interests are best served insocieties that acknowledge and respect that autonomy. Thatacknowledgement and respect are the basic elements of the rightsthemselves. *I* have fundamental human rights even though I know yoursilly infantile nonsense about a "creator" is wrong, so my rights arenot based in any "free exercise" of religion.

well said. "Rights" are what people, collectively, agree on. That iswhy people of different cultural backgrounds may disagree on what is a"fundamental human right". As societies mature and evolve, they seem tobecome more egalitarian. But that could just be my cultural bias.

--MarkA

You can safely assume that you have created God in your own image when itturns out that God hates all the same people you do. -- Anne Lamott

Post by Rudy Canoza*I* have fundamental human rights even though I know yoursilly infantile nonsense about a "creator" is wrong, so my rights arenot based in any "free exercise" of religion.

well said. "Rights" are what people, collectively, agree on. That iswhy people of different cultural backgrounds may disagree on what is a"fundamental human right". As societies mature and evolve, they seem tobecome more egalitarian. But that could just be my cultural bias.

Re: Jefferson and "the Creator."

He was the main writer of a committee of 5, and even if he had notincluded a phrase like "Nature's God," popular among Deists, inaddition to mentioning a Creator, the rest of the committee, withthe possible exception of Franklin, would have insisted on it, ifonly to appease the rest of the Congress, several of whom wereministers.

Turn the question of "where do rights come from" on its head.Where do people get the assumed right to interfere in other people'slives? I'd say that would only happen for one person when another personaggresses against him.

For too many theists throughout history, and for atheists who werefollowers of pernicious ideologies such as Marxism, "ghod" or "theinevitable forceds of history" authorized them to trample on others'rights, going back to the "divine right of kings," or the earlierideas of the priest-king or ghod-king.

What is the moral difference between refusing to perform at apresidential inauguration because you have a moral opposition

to >> >> > the incoming president, and refusing to bake a weddingcake for a >> >> > same sex couple because you have a moralopposition to same sex >> >> > marriage?

Perhaps a court should fine Springsteen for not performing.

And assess the same fine against Garth Brooksand Trish Yearwood and the rest of the Nashvillecrowd that is similarly not performing for Trump?

If the libs are to be consistant (and the NEVER) are, one should

not >> be able to refuse to provide a service based on their beliefsystem. >> They have no problems with Christians driving people outof business >> for exactly that.

No performers are breaking any law by not performingfor Trump. These "Christian" merchants WERE breaking thelaw.

It's the same premise. You just choose to ignore the parallel becauseit doesn't fit your bigotry.

You defend law breakers but think entertainershave duty to entertain Trump? Really?

I don't believe that anyone is claiming that entertainers are legallybound to perform for anyone. What is being pointed out is the hypocrisyof requiring Christians to be willing to violate the tenants of theirfaith as a condition of being in business, while allowing liberalperformers to refuse to entertain t at functions which advance positionscounter to theirs.

Well, there's a difference here, in one case it's liberals refusing service, in the other it's not.One rule for them, a different rule for us.

One is not supposed to be able to discriminate based on race, sex orcreed.

That's the law. It's a bad law, as it violates fundamental humanrights. It does *not* violate "free exercise" of religion. It's thatsimple.

What is the moral difference between refusing to perform at apresidential inauguration because you have a moral opposition

to >> >> > the incoming president, and refusing to bake a weddingcake for a >> >> > same sex couple because you have a moralopposition to same sex >> >> > marriage?

Perhaps a court should fine Springsteen for not performing.

And assess the same fine against Garth Brooksand Trish Yearwood and the rest of the Nashvillecrowd that is similarly not performing for Trump?

If the libs are to be consistant (and the NEVER) are, one should

not >> be able to refuse to provide a service based on their beliefsystem. >> They have no problems with Christians driving people outof business >> for exactly that.

No performers are breaking any law by not performingfor Trump. These "Christian" merchants WERE breaking thelaw.

It's the same premise. You just choose to ignore the parallel becauseit doesn't fit your bigotry.

You defend law breakers but think entertainershave duty to entertain Trump? Really?

I don't believe that anyone is claiming that entertainers are legallybound to perform for anyone. What is being pointed out is the hypocrisyof requiring Christians to be willing to violate the tenants of theirfaith as a condition of being in business, while allowing liberalperformers to refuse to entertain t at functions which advance positionscounter to theirs.

Well, there's a difference here, in one case it's liberals refusing service, in the other it's not.One rule for them, a different rule for us.

One is not supposed to be able to discriminate based on race, sex orcreed.

That's the law. It's a bad law, as it violates fundamental humanrights. It does *not* violate "free exercise" of religion. It's thatsimple.

Arguably, civil rights legislation in the US in the 1960s shouldhave taken the form of banning GOVERNMENTS, and those who contractedwith governments and accepted this rule as a condition of the contract,from discriminating among its citizenry on the basis of irrelevantcriteria such as race. The idea of the "common carrier" and the "publicaccommodation" extended non-discrimination law in such a way that itinevitably caused a conflict with the property rights (5th Amendment)of the owners of businesses who wanted to discriminate. Now, thosepeople may be the scum of the earth, but they have rights, too.

Government granting monopolies or special privileges to businessesso one particular firm had the market for a good or service (electricpower, railroads, etc) locked up meant that demanding those firms notdiscriminate had some logic to it. It was just a short step to makingall businesses conform. I would have preferred that they would havedied a death by refusing to compete for the larger public's business,but this is a 50 year old fight authentic liberals hsve lost, and theiris not much point in trying to roll it back.

There were times, in the US, that certain religious sects supportedsegregation or even slavery, so that a "first amendment" exemptionto allow discrimination on racial grounds would not have been beyondconsideration. Given the civil war amendments, insisting on that wouldnot have played.

You defend law breakers but think entertainershave duty to entertain Trump? Really?

I don't believe that anyone is claiming that entertainers are legallybound to perform for anyone. What is being pointed out is thehypocrisyof requiring Christians to be willing to violate the tenants of theirfaith as a condition of being in business, while allowing liberalperformers to refuse to entertain t at functions which advancepositionscounter to theirs.

There is no hypocrisy because Christians aren't being targeted (theproscription applies whether it is based in religious and secularbeliefs) and conservative performers are likewise permitted to refuse.

That violates the 14th amendment, The Liberal entertainers can't refusea gay wedding or a Christian wedding.... if they do then they aredoingthe same thing the baker did when s/he refused to bake a gay weddingcake.

If they offer their services to the general public, that is correct.However typically, an entertainer does not serve the general public.

SO now wedding singers are going to conform and even if the religion isburning gays at the stake, the singer has to sing for them andlikewise... no matter how evil they are or how evil and militant thegays are they have to sing for them.

I suspect most wedding singers offer their services to the generalpublic. In that case, they must serve gay weddings, Christian weddingsand Satanic weddings.

exactly.... and telling trump no because they disagree with hisreligious beliefs is violating Liberals own interpretation of theconstitution.

The entertainers who turned down Trump don't serve the general public,and thus are not subject to the law.

We all buy their songs so they are subject to it.

It's the same as refusing to play because the crowd is too black. Theyare refusing because the crowd is the wrong religion or race.

You defend law breakers but think entertainershave duty to entertain Trump? Really?

I don't believe that anyone is claiming that entertainers are legallybound to perform for anyone. What is being pointed out is thehypocrisyof requiring Christians to be willing to violate the tenants of theirfaith as a condition of being in business, while allowing liberalperformers to refuse to entertain t at functions which advancepositionscounter to theirs.

There is no hypocrisy because Christians aren't being targeted (theproscription applies whether it is based in religious and secularbeliefs) and conservative performers are likewise permitted to refuse.

That violates the 14th amendment, The Liberal entertainers can't refusea gay wedding or a Christian wedding.... if they do then they aredoingthe same thing the baker did when s/he refused to bake a gay weddingcake.

If they offer their services to the general public, that is correct.However typically, an entertainer does not serve the general public.

SO now wedding singers are going to conform and even if the religion isburning gays at the stake, the singer has to sing for them andlikewise... no matter how evil they are or how evil and militant thegays are they have to sing for them.

I suspect most wedding singers offer their services to the generalpublic. In that case, they must serve gay weddings, Christian weddingsand Satanic weddings.

exactly.... and telling trump no because they disagree with hisreligious beliefs is violating Liberals own interpretation of theconstitution.

The entertainers who turned down Trump don't serve the general public,and thus are not subject to the law.

We all buy their songs so they are subject to it.It's the same as refusing to play because the crowd is too black. Theyare refusing because the crowd is the wrong religion or race.That makes those Liberals racists and bigots.

So now you are in favor of slavery? Of forcing people who are notwilling to provide a service to provide that service against their will?And here I thought you were against forcing people to do things theywere not willing to do. Next you'll tell me that taxation isn't theft.

You defend law breakers but think entertainershave duty to entertain Trump? Really?

I don't believe that anyone is claiming that entertainers are legallybound to perform for anyone. What is being pointed out is thehypocrisyof requiring Christians to be willing to violate the tenants of theirfaith as a condition of being in business, while allowing liberalperformers to refuse to entertain t at functions which advancepositionscounter to theirs.

There is no hypocrisy because Christians aren't being targeted (theproscription applies whether it is based in religious and secularbeliefs) and conservative performers are likewise permitted to refuse.

That violates the 14th amendment, The Liberal entertainers can't refusea gay wedding or a Christian wedding.... if they do then they aredoingthe same thing the baker did when s/he refused to bake a gay weddingcake.

If they offer their services to the general public, that is correct.However typically, an entertainer does not serve the general public.

SO now wedding singers are going to conform and even if the religion isburning gays at the stake, the singer has to sing for them andlikewise... no matter how evil they are or how evil and militant thegays are they have to sing for them.

I suspect most wedding singers offer their services to the generalpublic. In that case, they must serve gay weddings, Christian weddingsand Satanic weddings.

exactly.... and telling trump no because they disagree with hisreligious beliefs is violating Liberals own interpretation of theconstitution.

The entertainers who turned down Trump don't serve the general public,and thus are not subject to the law.

We all buy their songs so they are subject to it.It's the same as refusing to play because the crowd is too black. Theyare refusing because the crowd is the wrong religion or race.That makes those Liberals racists and bigots.

So now you are in favor of slavery? Of forcing people who are notwilling to provide a service to provide that service against their will?And here I thought you were against forcing people to do things theywere not willing to do. Next you'll tell me that taxation isn't theft.

NO, I'm in favor of being consistent....

If you are going to enforce the law then do it equally, or NOT at all.

Post by Beam Me Up ScottyIt's the same as refusing to play because the crowd is too black. Theyare refusing because the crowd is the wrong religion or race.That makes those Liberals racists and bigots.

Do the people who play at an Inaugural get paid anything other thanexpenses? I would think that, normally, they do it gratis, for thepublicity. If so, non-discrimination law would not apply.

What is the moral difference between refusing toperform at a presidential inauguration because youhave a moral opposition

to >> >> > the incoming president, and refusing to bake a

wedding >>cake for a >> >> > same sex couple because you have amoral >>opposition to same sex >> >> > marriage?

Perhaps a court should fine Springsteen for notperforming.

And assess the same fine against Garth Brooksand Trish Yearwood and the rest of the Nashvillecrowd that is similarly not performing for Trump?

If the libs are to be consistant (and the NEVER) are, oneshould

not >> be able to refuse to provide a service based on their

belief >>system. >> They have no problems with Christiansdriving people out >>of business >> for exactly that.

No performers are breaking any law by not performingfor Trump. These "Christian" merchants WERE breaking thelaw.

It's the same premise. You just choose to ignore the parallelbecause it doesn't fit your bigotry.

You defend law breakers but think entertainershave duty to entertain Trump? Really?

I don't believe that anyone is claiming that entertainers arelegally bound to perform for anyone. What is being pointed out isthe hypocrisy of requiring Christians to be willing to violate thetenants of their faith as a condition of being in business, whileallowing liberal performers to refuse to entertain t at functionswhich advance positions counter to theirs.

No one is "requiring" Christians toviolate their tenets. They can obey theirtenets or obey the law. No one is forcingthem to operate a store.Is it your position that "religiousmerchants" don't have to obey the law?

Did Rosa Parks obey the law?

Did Rosa Parks claim any "religiousright" to violate the law?

Just those inalienable RIGHTS given to her by her creator and recognizedand protected by the constitution.

SO you could say she was claiming her God given rights as a human lifewere being violated.... I don't remember exactly how "she" phrased itwhen they took her to jail.

The State was requiring her to violate the constitution by requiring herto accept a place as a second class citizen, just as a person thatdecides to own a store is told by state laws again that they are asecond class citizen. The State is saying that the State has the powerto tell the store owner where to sit or what cakes they must bake.

Again the RIGHTS of people are violated by the State, and someone isbeing forced to become a second class citizen. If the city governmentbus line can't issue a bus ticket to tell people they're second classcitizens then how can they issue a business/commerce license that cratesa second class citizen?